A The present trend
The three graphs above show that global warming is real, that sea levels are rising and that since 1950 human activities created far more greenhouse gases than ever occurred during interglacial periods .Additional graphs at the end show where the CO2 came from. Some people believe that a large amount came from volcanic eruptions but many studies show that these eruptions only contributed 1%, (5)
Post 23 explains in detail why the official forecasts for rising sea levels are too low. In Copenhagen it was agreed to limit temperature rise to 2o C during this century to “avoid the worst impacts of climate change”. Now Dr Hansen and a cadre of co-authors from a wide array of disciplines argue that even 2 degrees is too much, and would "subject young people, future generations and nature to irreparable harm,"(1)
B Details of Dr Hansen’s study
Below are a few of the many explanations which Mr Hansen
gave in a recent article,(7)
Dr Hansen analysed studies of geologist Paul Hearty. “Hearty
found strong evidence for sea level
rise late in the Eemian to 6-9 m above present levels. Hearty also
found evidence for powerful storms in the North Atlantic near the end of the
Eemian period. (120 000 years ago). Dr Hansen stated “Earth is now approaching the warmth that existed then. Thus
several colleagues and I initiated global climate simulations aimed at trying
to understand what happened at the end of the Eemian and its relevance to climate change today.”
“Our simulations were
aimed to test my suspicion that ice sheet disintegration is a very nonlinear
phenomena and that the IPCC studies
were largely omitting what may be the most important forcing of the ocean:
the effect of cold freshwater from melting ice. Rather than use an ice sheet
model to estimate rates of freshwater release, we use observations for the
present ice melt rate and specify several alternative rates of increase
of ice melt. Our atmosphere-ocean
model shows that the freshwater spurs amplifying feedbacks that would accelerate ice shelf and ice
sheet mass loss,
thus providing support for our assumption of a nonlinear ice sheet response.”
C
Present inadequate prevention of climate change
In preparation for the December conference in Paris 29
governments have released their “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”
(INDCs), the vast majority of which are too weak to limit global warming to
scientifically advisable levels. The
current plans address about 65 per cent of global emissions.
A group analyzed 15 of the 29 contribution promises and rated seven as “inadequate”
(Australia, Canada, Japan,
New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia) and six “medium” (China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland
and the U.S.).
Only two of the plans — from Ethiopia and Morocco — were
considered “sufficient.”(2).
Note that the plans of China, the EU and the US’ which
are all better than Canada’s are detailed in post 20.
D Retrieval of CO2 from the atmosphere
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for some 100 years and we now
have the technology to capture it straight from the air rather than only from
smokestacks (post 23 D). So far carbon capture and storage(post 22 D) has been
expensive and capture from the air may be even more expensive. Part of the captured
carbon can be used to recover oil or in refined form used for softdrinks and
other industrial applications.The remainder has to be stored deep underground
where there is sufficient pressure to keep it in liquid form. Liquid CO2 takes up less space, and there is little danger of the gas seeping up to
the surface. (8)
A new type
of fuel cell could make CO2 purification
and storage cheaper, while generating electricity. Molten carbonate fuel
cells actually rely on carbon dioxide to operate. They take it in at one
electrode. That carbon dioxide is then used to form ions that conduct current
to the opposite electrode, where the carbon dioxide is emitted in concentrated
form.
When
sufficient capacity can be developed the capture from the air we can retrieve
all the excess CO2 which we have emitted over the years. If combined with
carbon capture and storage for existing power plants we may be able to bring
the CO2 level down to an acceptable level
Like encouragement
to replace fossil fuel energy with clean energy a global carbon tax will help developing
the CCS industry as shown below:
E Plea for a global carbon tax
Canadians, I would
urge you to write emails to our party leaders.and suggest to extend the BC carbon tax to
the rest of the country. That will strengthen our image and could lead
to a global carbon tax. That would allow taxing of exported fossil fuel without
unfair competition. The proceeds could, via an international fund, be used to
help less fortunate countries and pay companies at the tax rate for every tonne
of CO2, which they capture from smokestacks or straight from the
atmosphere. As shown in post 23 the technology exists and this could, like
solar and wind, become a thriving industry. Extensive Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) would bend the tip of that CO2 graph towards
horizontal and eventually down. Many people still oppose a carbon tax because they
believe it costs them money. The BC tax is revenue neutral and all money collected
is fairly paid back, 48% to people and 52% to businesses. There are 17 well defined
refund categories(3). People who use less than average fossil fuel get more money
back than they paid. That encourages conservation and as a result use of petroleum
producs dropped 17% while it rose by 1.5% in the rest of the country.
Americans, you have
a well defined carbon tax bill (Sanders Boxer), which will return 60% of revenue directly to households monthly,
allot 25% to deficit reduction and dedicate the remaining 15% to green energy”(4)
Plead with your politicians left and right to pass it. Carbon tax is too important
to postpone. Nobody argues about the need for schools and hospitals and carbon tax
should be just as political neutral.
Most graphs refer to 1950 as a
base line because “Anthropogenic CO2
Emissions from Fossil-Fuels did not become a potentially consequential factor
until approximately 1950, and then grew rapidly thereafter. The world added roughly 100 billion
tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a
quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. The large
increase in Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels since 1950 is quite
clear from the graph showing the Cumulative
Global Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions. The next graph shows Global
Per Capita Carbon Emissions gra
ph Obviously, as people become richer they use more
motorcycles, cars and appliances.
F Additional graphs
Most graphs refer to 1950 as a
base line because “Anthropogenic CO2
Emissions from Fossil-Fuels did not become a potentially consequential factor
until approximately 1950, and then grew rapidly thereafter. The world added roughly 100 billion
tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a
quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. The large
increase in Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels since 1950 is quite
clear from the graph showing the Cumulative
Global Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions. The next graph shows Global
Per Capita Carbon Emissions gra
The last 2 graphs show how specific areas have contributed
to the emissions
The total CO2 emissions
include changes in land use. “Rates of land-use
change, including clearing for agriculture and harvest of wood, were
reconstructed from statistical and historic documents for 9 world regions and
used, along with the per ha [hectare] changes in vegetation and soil that
result from land management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between
land and atmosphere.”
G Additional information in support of CCS from the atmosphere (see reference 10)
The statement under D) that the CO2 stays in the air for some
hundred years needs further clarification. It is actually 100-200 years but about
20% stays for thousands of years and that will prevent us from reaching pre-industrial
conditions unless we recover the CO2 from the atmosphere. When we would, via CCS
from smokestacks end green energy achieve 0 emission the temperature would no longer
rise much further but the climate change won’t stop. A lot of CO2 is absorbed
by the sea and circulates back and forth between sea and air. Scientists David
Archer. Ken Caldeira, Damon Matthews ,Peter Fawcett, Toby Tyrell and Richard Betts have studied this extensively. One
of the latest predictions (2007) is that 50% is removed within 30 years, 30% in
a few hundred years and 20% will stay in the air thousands of years. Some statements
including the need for CCS from the atmosphere are:
Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in
Stanford, California. It doesn't help that the summaries in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have confused the
issue, allege Caldeira and colleagues in an upcoming paper in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary
Sciences2.
Now he and a few other climate scientists are trying to spread the word that
human-generated CO2, and the warming it brings, will linger far into
the future — unless we take heroic
measures to pull the gas out of the air. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many
thousands of years." But
if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere could
be higher than this, models suggest. Overall, Caldeira argues, "the whole
issue of our long-term commitment to climate change has not really ever been
adequately addressed by the IPCC
"The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is
probably the least well understood part of the global warming issue," says
paleoclimatologist Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. "And
it's not because it isn't well documented in the IPCC report. It is, but it is
buried under a lot of other material."
"If civilization was
able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's
possible you could reverse this CO2 hangover."
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
