Temperatures Rising (...temperature goals laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement...unlikely...)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2017/018180/temperatures-rising

Temperatures Rising

Achieving the global temperature goals laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement is unlikely, according to research by economist Dick Startz

By Andrea Estrada
Thursday, August 3, 2017 - 11:00
Santa Barbara, CA

The Paris Climate Agreement of 2016, which saw 195 nations come together in the shared goal of ameliorating climate change, set forth an ambitious goal of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Since then, many have wondered, is that even scientifically possible? Unfortunately, the odds aren’t looking good.

New research by Dick Startz, a professor in UC Santa Barbara’s Department of Economics, along with colleagues from the University of Washington and Upstart, suggests it is unfeasible for the world to meet the global temperature goals adopted in the agreement, and nearly unfathomable that the collective nations will exceed expectations.

Startz collaborated on a paper, published in “Nature: Climate Change,” that used a combination of statistical, scientific and economic data to paint a clear picture of the climate scenarios most likely by the year 2100. That picture is bleak.

The paper posits a 95 percent chance that global temperatures will increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius, and a less than 1 percent chance they will not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius.

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3352

[lapfog_1]

1. It is becoming obvious that

mankind will not stop climate change soon enough to avoid some of the more horrific outcomes.

Of course, the planet will survive... but a new mass extinction event will/is happening and man may be one of the species selected for extinction. Even if not going extinct, mankind will face rapid population collapse.

The only answer is geoengineering... the correct solution of which is not known at present.

Even if we never pumped another barrel of oil or ton of coal or liter of natural gas... we will face an inhospitable climate unless we engineer our way out of this.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Let us say that "part of the answer" must be "geoengineering"

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Then again, I've been saying that for more than a decade.

To my way of thinking, any action taken with the intent of affecting the climate is "geoengineering." So, for example, reforestation is a form of geoengineering. More obviously the use of biochar or "terra preta" is "geoengineering."

Simply slowing (or even halting) carbon emissions will not be sufficient. We need to take active steps to lower the level of “Greenhouse Gases” in the atmosphere.

That said, it will be virtually impossible for us to "engineer our way out of this" if we do not cut our carbon emissions. They are not only warming our planet, they are poisoning the oceans…

[StevieM]

4. Well said. And agreed--any long-term solution will have to include geoengineering. (eom)

[mackdaddy]

5. Problem is we have been GeoEngineering the planet... Just Negative for our existence.

I can pick up the phone and have a ton of coal delivered for under $100. Coal burnt in power plants is under $30 at ton, and it makes about 3 tons of CO2. And it is still being burnt at industrial levels. Every time I flip on a light switch more coal in burnt. (at least in the evening, I have solar panels but you get the idea.) Millions of tons of coal is being burned. Same for petroleum in every gas of diesel engine in every vehicle driven

To remove even the CO2 from a single ton of fuel burned would be thousands of dollars. And the technology to do this at scale does not currently exist.

People would die first before they would have their electricity or price at the pump go up 20 fold. And probably will.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. No. We haven't been geoengineering the planet. We've been unintentionally altering the climate.

As I wrote above, “To my way of thinking, any action taken with the intent of affecting the climate is ‘geoengineering.’”

No one was burning coal with the intent of affecting the climate.

You see, the key here is the word “Engineering.”


You write: “To remove even the CO2 from a single ton of fuel burned would be thousands of dollars. And the technology to do this at scale does not currently exist. ”

If the technology to do it at scale does not currently exist, how do you know how much it would cost?

http://engineering.columbia.edu/columbia-engineers-develop-new-low-cost-way-capture-carbon
Columbia Engineers Develop New, Low-Cost Way to Capture Carbon

A recent study led by Xi Chen, associate professor of earth and environmental engineering at Columbia Engineering, and Klaus Lackner at Arizona State University, reports an unconventional reversible chemical reaction in a confined nanoenvironment. The discovery, a milestone in clarifying the scientific underpinnings of moisture-swing chemical reaction, is critical to understanding how to scrub CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere, and the researchers have already used it to capture CO2 more efficiently and at a much lower cost than other methods.

…

“With water as the trigger, our energy cost of the whole CO2 capture cycle is very small,” Chen adds, “and that makes grand-scale application very promising for the first time.”

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.201507846



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/06/the-quest-to-hack-trees-and-beat-climate-change/


The quest to hack trees and beat climate change
By Matt McFarland January 6, 2016

…

Once the technology is fully built out, they expect to remove a ton of carbon dioxide for about $100 a ton. Their long-term estimate is less than $30 per ton. As is, there’s no resemblance to a tree as scientists including those at Arizona State focus on making the carbon removal process effective and affordable rather than beautiful to look at.

…



(OK, so your estimate is > $1,000/ton. This estimate is < $30/ton. That’s quite a difference!

[mackdaddy]

7. So we should place orders for this technology to remove 30 Billion tons of CO2 per year.

When do we expect delivery? And who is going to pick up the bill?

By the way, where do we store all of this CO2?

"Promising" future technology, or some of the pilot plants taking our a few thousands of tons of CO2 is just great. But we have a 3 alarm fire of a climate problem now and nearly half of the American population does not even believe it exists.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I'm sorry, you were protesting that it was impossible to capture the stuff

Or, if it was possible, it would cost an astronomical amount to capture it.

Now, you complain, what will we do with it? Who will pay for it?

If you don't want to do something, you will find lots of reasons why we “cannot” do it.

As it turns out, there are lots of ways to handle CO2.

For example, one way which we use “fossil fuels” is making plastics. If we would like to continue to make plastics, we can do that with captured CO2.

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/03/09/low-carbon-bioplastic-030916/

March 9, 2016
Stanford scientists make renewable plastic from carbon dioxide and plants

The new technology could provide a green alternative to petroleum-based plastic bottles and other polyester products.

…

“Our goal is to replace petroleum-derived products with plastic made from CO2,” said Matthew Kanan, an assistant professor of chemistry at Stanford. “If you could do that without using a lot of non-renewable energy, you could dramatically lower the carbon footprint of the plastics industry.”

…

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/531180a.html


Or, if you like, you can make stone out of it.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/iceland-carbon-capture-project-quickly-converts-carbon-dioxide-stone-180959365/
Iceland Carbon Capture Project Quickly Converts Carbon Dioxide Into Stone

More than 95 percent of gas injected into the ground precipitated out as harmless carbonate, scientists calculate

By Sarah Zielinski
smithsonian.com
June 9, 2016

A pilot project that sought to demonstrate that carbon dioxide emissions could be locked up by turning them into rock appears to be a success. Tests at the CarbFix project in Iceland indicate that most of the CO2 injected into basalt turned into carbonate minerals in less than two years, far shorter a time than the hundreds or thousands of years that scientists had once thought such a process would take.

“This project shows that, in fact, CO2 most likely turns into carbonates in a relatively modest amount of time,” notes David Goldberg, a geophysicist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University who was not involved with the project. “That’s a significant outcome.”

Most conventional carbon capture and storage projects inject liquefied carbon dioxide into sedimentary rocks, the type of rocks in which oil and natural gas are found. Because oil and gas companies have so much experience working with these types of rocks, they are a natural place to store CO2. But these types of formations can only store the gas, not turn it into rock. And there is always a danger that the gas could escape to the atmosphere and add to global climate change.

The mineralogy of basalts, though, is very favorable for locking up carbon dioxide, says Juerg Matter, a geochemist now at the University of Southampton who began working on the CarbFix project while at Lamont-Doherty. For carbon dioxide to transform into carbonate, the rocks into which the gas is injected need to have calcium-, magnesium- or iron-rich silicate minerals. A chemical reaction then occurs that converts the carbon dioxide and minerals into a chalky carbonate mineral. Sedimentary rocks don’t have much of those minerals, but basalts—a type of volcanic rock that makes up most of the ocean floor as well as rocks on some other places on land—have plenty. Scientists figured that they should be able to lock away CO2 in such rocks as carbonate, but first they had to prove that it would work—and on a reasonable timescale.

…



The key to the “doomer” mentality is to always try to prove that we’re absolutely doomed, the situation is hopeless, and therefore there is no point in doing anything to combat it, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

[mackdaddy]

9. The way I see it we have a Climate Catastrophe immanent because of three main components.

First is plain physics. How much CO2 we put in the atmosphere and the cascade that has forced. Melting ice caps, melting permafrost, Methane releases, increased ocean heating through albedo, increased temperatures revving extreme weather events, food production crashes. I would say the biggest question on the GW side is whether we have passed the point of no return, or if we can still pull out of the dive. Whether we have 8 years or 80 years.

Second and third are related are political and economic. Do enough people believe the seriousness of the problem, and are we as a world population of people willing to pay either in convenience or money for whatever the remediation. I guess this loops back around to physics in that will people finally do something soon enough to avert catastrophe, or is is now already too late. Solar and wind energy sources have been working commercially for 40 years but have just recently been widely adopted, mostly, I think, because they are now undeniable economically cheaper. And there is still a big push back.

I personally have a 10kw solar install. Running my home (all electric) now creates about 6 tons of CO2 per year, vs about 45 tons per year for the coal burning power plant 60 miles away. But in reality I put them in because over 20 years my total energy costs will be 2/3 less. I also taught solar, wind and fuel cell technology for about 3 years and there are about 100 people out there mostly working in the industry. So I have done some for my part.

Analogy: You are driving a car which take 128 feet to stop from 60MPH your current speed. A semi truck runs a light 80 feet in front of you. Physics dictates you are screwed. No matter what you do your are going to crash. No one says that you just give up and at least not take you foot off the gas, and even take the next step and press the brake which could at least lessen the impact. Knowing and acknowledging there is going to be a terrible crash does not mean you are just a doomer. Just informed.

I just do not see we have enough time to go through the political and economic decision processes to get to a real nuts and bolts physical fix before the civilization itself collapses. By all means slam on the brakes, maybe some of us in the back seat may even survive the crash.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I guess I prefer the opinions of climate scientists, like James Hansen

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

[StevieM]

3. I agree. There is no solution to this conflict that does not include geoengineering.

That is especially apparent when you take into account the feedback loops. 2 degrees celsius of warming releases carbon from soil and plants, especially the Amazon. That brings us to three degrees. 3 degrees of warming triggers a thaw of the permafrost. That brings us to four degrees. 4 degrees of warming releases trapped methane from the sea bed. That raises the temperature further. And so on and so on.

Read this if you want to get really scared.

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm