https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/21/cutting-soot-emissions-arctic-ice-melt-climate-change

Reducing wood-burning, gas-flaring and global diesel emissions would be ‘quick win’ in combating irreversible climate change, scientists say. Such a “quick win” would be important to provide breathing space while world populations reduce their use of fossil fuels

Janneseti,

While reducing/eliminating soot emissions is something that NEEDS to be done... It won't do diddly-squat in combating irreversible climate change. Too late on that one. It is way too late. A lot is already occurring/going to occur.

All it would do is, as several here have said, 'kick the can down the road for a few years'... It might slightly delay things.

The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2

David Archer & Victor Brovkin

Abstract
The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle, which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20– 60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

Another good paper by Dr. Archer:

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

Read and understand these papers, and others, and be afraid.

There is an approximately 40 year lag between carbon emissions and changes in climate. What we are experiencing now is from carbon emitted 40 YEARS ago.

The lifetime of the 'extra' CO2 is immense. At the current emitted value of 300 gigatons (from just fossil fuels), models say that about 6.7% of it will still be around after 100,000 years. One hundred thousand years.... More emissions only increase this amount.

While much of the CO2 will be gone in a few centuries in an exponential decay, the immense long tail on this decay... complicates things. Several items, such at melting ice sheets, methane clathrate deposits, frozen peat deposits in the permafrost, etc., are MOST vulnerable to this long tail. Potential positive feedback loops. Especially worrisome are those, such as methane clathrate and peat deposits, that will emit more CO2 as they are affected.

Other things include as the oceans take up more CO2 from the air, it lowers the pH of the ocean water and perturbs the CaCO3 mechanism for its neutralization and removal. So, not only does increasing CO2 concentrations in the ocean reduce the amount that the oceans can absorb from the air, but it also negatively impacts the mechanisms that the ocean uses to get rid of it. Double whammy.

But things get still worse. The ocean can take up (at current CO2 levels in the air and the ocean) about 2 Gigatons of carbon a year... Our current emissions, per the IPCC are around 40 Gigatons per year. Of which, again according to the IPCC, are about 24% from Agriculture, Forestry, and other land use (mostly from Agriculture). Now then one quarter of 40 Gigatons is 10 Gigatons... or about 5 times too much. So, we will have to cut Agriculture by 80% and turn EVERYTHING ELSE OFF to even have a slight chance of getting a handle on things.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG3/Chapter%2001/03_figure_1.3.png (from AR5, 2014)

Figure 1.3 b. Global Direct + Indirect emissions, by sector. The green arc (AFOLU). 24%. I would put the graph on the page here, but it is a bit wide.

Sorry, but your link is like treating a traumatic amputation of an arm or a leg with a tiny band-aid. Not gonna do much to heal the damage. Essentially only going to make you feel a little better by tricking you into thinking that you have actually done something.

Sorry, but the options for a solution are few.

Either we can put our faith (and an immense amount of our resources) in science and hope like h*ll that we can devise a mechanism to scrub the Carbon out of the air (at a rate of, perhaps, twice the current yearly emissions ... say 80 Gigatons a year) in an affordable, efficient way, and convert the Carbon into a permanent solid form (that will not decompose or decay... ever), and somehow dispose of it, and commit to keeping it running pretty much in perpetuity (scaling it back when the CO2 target in the air is reached so we don't undershoot and freeze... but it will have to run for hundreds of thousands of years, minimum).

Or, the certain method of turning EVERYTHING off, accepting the die-off of about 99.95% of humanity, waiting out the damage, and staying hunter-gatherers for... forever.

The second option is not going to be easy to convince the people to go along with.

The first option is not going to be an easy sell either, for the bulk of our resources are going to have to be put into it, greatly disrupting everyone's life and standard of living... on a 'maybe'...

No, the situation looks grim. We are screwed.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

New research backs a controversial study that found there had been no slowdown in global warming.

---

#resist

New research backs a controversial study that found there had been no slowdown in global warming.

Controversial study?
Perhaps that the so called scientists that call the Climate Change not for real but is already very much notably in the Arctic regions should going there and look for themself!
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0280-warning-of-collapse-of-buildings-in-siberias-permafrost-cities-in-next-35-years/
However I read somewhere that the increase of the global CO2 emissions has leveled out.
But it will take decades to get back to non Climate Change levels.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2016/12/change-arctic-year-was-unlike-any-ever-seen-scientists-say

New research backs a controversial study that found there had been no slowdown in global warming.

So, in order to support one study's conclusion that was reached by 'cooking' the data, another study also 'cooks' the data... heh. Not a way to support and increase scientific rigor.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

New research backs a controversial study that found there had been no slowdown in global warming.

Controversial study?
Perhaps that the so called scientists that call the Climate Change not for real but is already very much notably in the Arctic regions should going there and look for themself!
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0280-warning-of-collapse-of-buildings-in-siberias-permafrost-cities-in-next-35-years/
However I read somewhere that the increase of the global CO2 emissions has leveled out.
But it will take decades to get back to non Climate Change levels.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2016/12/change-arctic-year-was-unlike-any-ever-seen-scientists-say

There is a big difference between Climate Change(CC) (from ALL sources -- which is indisputably real), Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)(human caused --again, indisputably real), and Anthropogenic Climate Change due to Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GhG-ACC)(what everyone is talking about -- highly likely, but not conclusively proven real).

How much of the 'measured' climate change is from so-called 'natural sources' -- things such as changes in solar output, orbital geometry of Earth, etc?

How much of the 'measured' climate change is from human activity not involving GhG emissions?

How much of the 'measured' climate change is from human activity involving GhG emissions?

This is the REAL issue at hand... the relative amounts of these three.

You can not just take the total amount of climate change (#1 + #2 + #3) and blame it all on GhG-ACC (#3).

Also, bear in mind that that are MANY more sources of Anthropogenic GhG emissions than just burning of 'fossil fuels'.

Over the last 9000 to 10000 years, for instance, Agriculture has produced an increase of 40ppm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (240 ppm to 280 ppm). Per the models, this small, modest increase over this time period has produced perhaps 1.5 degrees C of warming.

And it will take considerably longer than 'a few decades' to fix the CO2 levels. Try a few hundred thousand years... not a few tens of years. We are long term screwed. Things are well past the point where even totally stopping fossil fuel use will fix things.

As I have said before, there are two solutions...

#1: vast reduction in population (on the order of 99.95% reduction).

#2: a scientific breakthrough in figuring out how to cheaply, efficiently, and permanently scrub GhG (especially CO2) from the Atmosphere.

Neither of these two are very likely. We are just so screwed.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

New research backs a controversial study that found there had been no slowdown in global warming.

So, in order to support one study's conclusion that was reached by 'cooking' the data, another study also 'cooks' the data... heh. Not a way to support and increase scientific rigor.

Why argue about two study's different conclusions.
There are MANY more studies (peer revewied and all) that the Climate Change is already here and that many countries will suffer.
Texas with upcoming droughts and some extra fierceful hurricanes.
Sweden and other Nordic countries will have a colder climate and more rain.
There is no other studies that contradict that.

As I have said before, there are two solutions...
#1: vast reduction in population (on the order of 99.95% reduction).
#2: a scientific breakthrough in figuring out how to cheaply, efficiently, and permanently scrub GhG (especially CO2) from the Atmosphere.
Neither of these two are very likely. We are just so screwed.

#1 Oh dear...
But I read some figures like a 30 to 40 % reduction in the global population is needed.
Not only to stop the Climate Change.
Where do we start the Reduction?
North America or Europe?

#2. We both need to scrub the Atmosphere and stop producing energy from combusting engines.

Bottom line.
We are screwed....

Unless we goes for #1.
It's doable within a century if you follow some Family Planning.
Actually there are several countries that already have a negative birthrate.

Climate change may well be here as it always has been. Long term trends can establish a hypothesis and we can test whatever we agree upon that is happening as to whether ( weather?--pun) or not this represents an unusual condition to a certainty of 5% or even 1%. I have provided ample evidence on these forums over time that man-made C0-2 is less than 5% of CO-2 emissions and that the burning of fossil fuel contributes quite a bit less than that number. CO-2 is less than .4% of the atmosphere, and if it is a greenhouse gas than it is many many time less virulent than, say, Methane, nitrous oxides or water vapor.

So I am all for protecting the planet and welcome efforts at clean air and pure water as well as proper disposal of sewage and garbage. What is disturbing is that in a time of global recession there are nut-ball schemes advocated . These tilt at non-existant windmills that raise the cost of energy to no effect on the environment and postulated climate change.

Rebuttals welcome.
Please state what you would have us do--short of euthanizing 95% of our world population. Also list the costs and impacts on society of your proposals.

Nuff said

I will start off the what's to do. Regardless of reasons I believe it would be better to burn as little fossil fuel as possible mainly to conserve the supply for future generations. I would have the United States embark on an all-nuclear program with a target akin to that in France. The challenge will be to do so in a totally safe and economical manner. I would foster new building standards and codes to apply to all new construction and remodeling. These would call for at least a 220-volt charging station with a standardized interface. I would fund more research in solar panels for home construction and also battery research.

You often hear people citing overpopulation as the single biggest threat to the Earth. But can we really single out population growth in this way? Are there really too many people on our planet?
It is clear to all of us that the planet is not expanding. There is only so much space on Earth, not to mention only so many resources – food, water and energy – that can support a human population. So a growing human population must pose some kind of a threat to the wellbeing of planet Earth, mustn't it?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support
By 2100 the population is about 11 billion and the growth will level out.
But if we don't start to do something now it's maybe too late.
First. Consider wealth distribution and eridicate poverty.
Second. Family planning and reduce infant mortality.
Third. Education for all.´
I think these three steps are necessary to at least stop the growth and that perhaps only 10 or 9 billion people have to share our earth's resources by 2100.

You often hear people citing overpopulation as the single biggest threat to the Earth. But can we really single out population growth in this way? Are there really too many people on our planet?
It is clear to all of us that the planet is not expanding. There is only so much space on Earth, not to mention only so many resources – food, water and energy – that can support a human population. So a growing human population must pose some kind of a threat to the wellbeing of planet Earth, mustn't it?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support
By 2100 the population is about 11 billion and the growth will level out.
But if we don't start to do something now it's maybe too late.
First. Consider wealth distribution and eridicate poverty.
Second. Family planning and reduce infant mortality.
Third. Education for all.´
I think these three steps are necessary to at least stop the growth and that perhaps only 10 or 9 billion people have to share our earth's resources by 2100.

7+ billion is way too many. 9... 10... 11 billion is WAY TOO MANY.

#1: wealth distribution is irrelevant. Everyone (that survives) will be dirt poor.... forever.
#2: family planning is irrelevant. 99.95% are going to have to be eliminated.... SOON.
#3: education for all. heh. Future hi-tech is going to be stone knives and bearskins. The only education that will be needed is already possessed by those most likely to survive: The current hunter-gatherer peoples that have had very little to no contact with the rest of the world....

'Science & Technology' is not going to stop GhG-ACC, they are its primary cause. We can either have a near-total population collapse (only way to stop GhG-ACC)... Or we can learn to live with GhG-ACC until we all bake/broil.

Sorry, there is no middle ground.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sorry, there is no middle ground.

Whether and where we can reach a "middle ground" is something of a race between politics and selfish greed and brinksmanship...

Education is a very big help. As is a feeling/sense of 'stability'/'security'. Note how some areas/societies have naturally reached a steady or even a lowering population level due to a change in their society whereby everyday mortality is seen to be low enough that a very big extended tribal family is no longer needed or even desirable.

There are positive ways possible to save our planet and ourselves.

Perhaps our biggest enemy is now our corrupt ways of finance and business, all without morals or care, and the reckless impractical greed of a few psychopaths that have clawed their way to what they consider to be "The Top". All at the expense of everything else, including everyone else...

So:

Can we have a positive change of society and politics and business such that a healthy population can survive and cleanly thrive?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

99.95% are going to have to be eliminated.... SOON.

Nah. Less then 50% of the population have to be eliminated if humanity choose to live like today.
http://www.overshootday.org/

On August 8, 2016, we began to use more from nature than our planet can renew in the whole year.

My prediction is that the Overshoot Day in 2017 will be on August 2.
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock....

One much needed positive side effect of going clean is very much needed here, now rather than pollutingly later:


Brixton Road breaches annual air pollution limit in five days

... King's College London, which runs the air quality monitoring stations, said some London streets have the highest levels of NO2 exposure in the world. Oxford Street, Kings Road and the Strand are other pollution hotspots.

Under EU law hourly levels of NO2, mostly caused by diesel vehicles, must not exceed 200 micrograms per cubic metre...

... The news has come on the day Mayor of London Sadiq Khan announced 10 new low emission bus zones in the capital.

The new routes bring the total number of Low Emission Zones planned to 12, including previously announced zones in Putney High Street and Brixton. The mayor has pledged to double funding to tackle air pollution to £875m over five years..

... "Too many people have had their lives shortened, their asthma and other respiratory problems worsened and their quality of life reduced..."



All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

99.95% are going to have to be eliminated.... SOON.

Nah. Less then 50% of the population have to be eliminated if humanity choose to live like today.
http://www.overshootday.org/

On August 8, 2016, we began to use more from nature than our planet can renew in the whole year.

My prediction is that the Overshoot Day in 2017 will be on August 2.
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock....

How do we reprogram our present exploitative way of living to instead move soon enough to sustainability and clean?...


We have quite a race to not lose...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Looking at the UK National Grid supply for a bright and breezy clear day today, we have a power mix of:

Pretty much equally 1/3rd dirty old fossils, 1/3rd nuclear, and 1/3rd renewables (wind, solar, hydro, bio).


That mix can only get better as we progress towards summer.

At least this is one improving part of the reduction of pollution story...

(Here's hoping we do not get dirty Trumped!)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

2017 has been a bad year for planet earth

2017 is the first time there has been record low Sea Ice at both the north pole and south pole and the lows are very alarming .

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

2017 has seen a record Bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and 10,000 hectors of mangroves in the Northern Territory die off due to very high temps in the tropics

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-10/unprecedented-10000-hectares-of-mangroves-die/7552968

Alass now the pipelines are being built and Trumps Denial of Global warming the feedback loop aka: Runaway Green house effect will now accelerate

As for Carbon Capture and storage it's Total crap , You burn Coal you release Co2 and you could never store the Co2 that man is making as we are doing it on a industrial level

---

One small token of awareness today:


Cities and monuments switch off for Earth Hour

The Empire State Building and United Nations headquarters in New York joined other iconic buildings and monuments around the world plunging into darkness for sixty minutes on Saturday to mark Earth Hour and draw attention to climate change.

The Eiffel Tower, the Kremlin, the Acropolis in Athens and Sydney's Opera House also dimmed their lights as millions of people from some 170 countries and territories were expected to take part in Earth Hour, the annual bid to highlight global warming caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas to drive cars and power plants...



Meanwhile, here the UK has had a good sunny weekend with about 25% of the electricity supplies from renewables. Around noon, solar power alone provided over 25% of the National Grid (electricity) supply. Wind, biomass and hydro added to that.


There is more we can do yet!

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

China, EU reaffirm climate goals

Cheers.

China, EU reaffirm climate goals

Cheers.

And them Red necks Deniers with there McCarthyism , fascist nasty , greedy attitude to Global Warming is making the Socialists and Communist look fantastic

OY! OY! OY! Communism ,Communism ,Communism
OY! OY! OY! Socialism ,Socialism ,Socialism
OY! OY! OY! Universal Healthcare ,Universal Healthcare ,Universal Healthcare

Long live Labour

_ill ! , _ill !, _ill !, RED NECKS ,RED NECKS ,RED NECKS ops better not use that one there stupid enough in America to actually do that

---